Community Engagement

We’re on Twitter!

Tag: Identity

With the modern Olympic Games in full swing this year countries from around the world have sent their best and most fit citizens as representatives of their country to compete for the fame and economic benefits which come with an internationally televised competition for physical and national bragging rights.

Though they hold reverence to their Greek origins much of what constitutes the modern Olympics is an anathema to its historical ancestor. Held in the ancient Greek city of Olympia the Olympics were explicitly Greek in tradition and practice and were primarily the focus of freed Greek men – with a few notable exceptions. This in itself should serve as representation for the bastardization and appropriation of ancient Greek culture which the modern competitive games represent today.

However, what remains is still an important descendant to the original spirit of the games; bragging rights and a means for spreading culture to other competitor’s opponent nations.

For traditional Americans of European descent this includes the 2016 Olympian Ibtihaj Muhammad. Born in New Jersey, Muhammad represents the changing and hostile culture being spread and represented as ‘American’ at this year’s Olympics. In an article featured on RollingStone, Muhammad is held up as the paragon for Black and Muslim Americans of African descent.

Riddled throughout the article, however, is the pervasive implication that what America – and by proxy the term American – means to those who share little to nothing with Muhammad is that they have no place for representation among the media pushed fervor and fawning over Muhammad’s Africanness and her Islamic faith. Though TeamUSA consists of a multitude of ethnic nationalities from both men and women the spotlight of this year’s Olympic fervor for the U.S. is Muhammad.

She says,

The honor of representing Muslim and Black women is one I don’t take lightly.

Meaning she’s not there to primarily represent all Americans but a specific subset of them. Fair enough – if it weren’t for the worrisome rhetoric coming from the media, political think tanks and interest groups, and even the President himself regarding the changing landscape of the American electorate.

Obviously, I am talking about what I hope will be your decision to decline the position as flag bearer in opening ceremonies of the Olympics in Rio De Janeiro on Friday. While you haven’t said this yet, I’m sure this is what you are going to do, because you are not only an Olympic hero, you are — by medal count — the Olympic hero. And yes, being asked to carry the flag is a big deal. I’m betting that even a star of your magnitude is still feeling the glow of being voted to carry the flag by your Olympic peers. But I know that you must know that there is a better choice to carry the flag — the athlete who came in second to you in the vote for flag bearer, fencer Ibtihaj Muhammad.

Bell further writes,

[T]hat’s why I would be proud of you for giving up your position to Ibtihaj Muhammad. Muhammad carrying the flag would be much bigger than your one moment. It would be a symbol for our country in this moment when we are mostly known for one of the most contentious, controversial, scandal-ridden, hateful, xenophobic, jingoistic, and just generally unlikeable presidential elections in recent memory. This is at a time when we could use some more symbols of unity and togetherness.

Wouldn’t an even better symbol of unity and togetherness be Bell saying, “you know what, yeah there’s a lot of language and politics I disagree with this year, but the best thing for us to do as Americans in an effort show our unity and togetherness is to ignore race and religion, ignore that hateful rhetoric, and allow Phelps to carry the torch united in our shared American identity and spirit towards a committed drive to win for our country and our people”?

In a more reasonable and unified America – maybe.

Bell’s insistence on focusing on the ‘runner-up’ but religious and cultural winner, Muhammad, directs us to view the America they’re supposed to represent as even more divided and fractured along identity lines while at the same time demanding such an act and rhetoric would do the opposite.

Behind all his disingenuous appeals towards ‘unity and togetherness’ Bell is appealing to the Black and Muslim community to see Phelps’ decision not to acquiesce to such a self-deprecating act as an implicitly anti-Black and anti-Muslim act and by its nature further instills division and animosity towards Phelps and all other White men across the American nation (since Phelps is a White man). He is giving Phelps no other option and goading anyone who reads his words into seeing this in explicitly racially and religiously hostile terms.

But, then again, that’s exactly what Bell wants.

Bell’s anti-White rhetoric is textbook ‘hey White man you don’t need any of that even though you earned it. Just give it to the second-best to signal how progressive we are’.

Beyond his hateful and divisive, but Black-centric, rhetoric Bell is signalling to his readers that America has moved towards a new identity where ‘American’ only means something insofar as you’re not a White man or woman.

In a competition where the best American athlete, as well as the best olympian athlete, gets to carry the torch and all the honor that act comes with Bell is telling Americans that what’s more important to ‘America’ is the second-best woman who just so happens to be Muslim and Black.

I doubt he’d be advocating the same thing for a White male of Christian faith if Muhammad had earned all the achievements Phelps had.

Returning to the Stones article we are given the picture of a woman who’s not American first but Muslim.

Still, she is very proud to be recognized as a Muslim first and foremost. She always makes sure to pray five times a day. “I just read about some new facilities for worship at the Olympics center – I’m excited to check it out.”

Muslim activist Linda Sarsour speaks for many of us when she declares Muhammad is “not representing Muslim Americans. She’s a Muslim representing the United States of America.”

For her to be representing Muslim Americans would mean she’d be representing Americans first who happen to be Muslim. According to Sarsour and Muhammad herself, it’s the other way around as they see it. Which means that, for them, America is not a nation of Americans but of Blacks and Muslims. She’s not representing all those Americans who are White, Asian, Hispanic, Roman Catholic, Methodist, etc.

As Muhammad sees it, she’s representing the America she knows and identifies most with – the African and Islamic America.

The Changing Racial Language of Our American Consciousness

The article title itself is both an implicit and explicit acknowledgment that something in America has changed. For native-born White Americans it suggests that the concept of race is being rekindled as a means for non-White American citizens to arrive at their own in-group interests at the expense of White Americans. It also suggests – albeit implicitly – that America, at one point, was not directed or motivated by racially conscious members of her society – a false claim.

The article starts out begging the question that there were (and possibly there still are) some who had hoped the Obama presidency would equal the ‘triumph of a colorblind America’? These politicians, pundits, and naïve citizens were (and for those who still hold this hope today) detached from reality and hopelessly ill-informed as to the American history and its racial past.

Obama’s presidency has been a guiding light for Blacks in America in moving towards their goal of reignitingrace as a tactical political, social, and economic weapon against their political, social, and economic enemies.

The impression granted to Martin Luther King, that an ignorance of color is the best ‘racial unifier’ as a ‘core pillar of race relations’, is incoherent at best; to have race relations and use race as a metric for evaluating the general positive or negative status of one’s current racial relations demands race be an active and cognitively ever-present concept on all people’s minds.

Thus to claim ignorance of race as a means to increased positive race relations denies the very concept necessary for evaluating the aforementioned race relations. It becomes clear in recognition of this fact that the programs cited in the article (such as affirmative action and the Voting Rights Act) are antithetical to both King’s desire America ignore race as well as the fact that these specifically and centrally racially motivated programs are, at their ideological roots, incoherent with their stated goals and the foundations they’re built.

This says nothing to the fact that denying a society access to its racial roots, history, and culture is existentially fatal; without access to one’s past and the means and methods as to how they arrived at the present these individuals will falter in the face of other societies and civilizations who adopt them as core foundation to their own flourishing.

As can be seen, European and White American communities have been rendered utterly disoriented as they’ve become increasingly deracinated and diasporic with each other and their commonly shared racial and ancestral genealogies. Certainly our country has changed, to echo the words of Chief Justice John Roberts, but hardly any White American of European ancestry could claim it has been for the better – if not for them then for their children and in the future their children’s children.

In particular, and as the article lays out regarding the current racially conscious Black Lives Matter racial advocacy group,

The Black Lives Matter movement, in particular, maintains that colorblindness has merely become a way for white Americans to ignore the deeper and more insidious forms of racism many blacks say are still rampant.

As we shall see, the inclination towards a post-colorblind American is merely a weapon of revenge to be exacted across the nation against White American men, women, and their posterity.

Citing them as ‘a new class of African-American thinkers’, Black Lives Matter is seeking a new ‘vision of race in America’. One which benefits Blacks at the expense of all others, but especially Whites, and is rooted in a ‘more clear-eyed’ racial ‘color consciousness’. It is claimed that this ‘open acknowledgment’ and ‘continuing importance’ of race will allow for the opposite of what is characterized as a ‘blithe dismissal of the central role’ race has – and always will – play ‘in society’.

Of course, what’s embedded underneath their stated goal is that race never ceased to be an important factor in the overall health of society and Black Lives Matter, as the representative of Blacks and Black in-group interests, intends to wield this goal as a tactical political, social, and economic plank going into the future.

The further claim regarding their desire for a ‘clear-eyed color consciousness’ extends only insofar as it views their own racially founded interests in a positive light which will confer an increased social, political, and economic benefit to Blacks while simultaneously denying this same platform to Whites since to do so would constitute an implicit propensity towards ‘problematic’ Whiteness, furthers institutional racism, and functions as a hegemonic impediment towards realizing their own racially oriented objectives.

The moment this current strategy reveals itself as a tool Whites can use for their own interests (such a phenomenon is currently underway) and can counter those of non-Whites, non-Whites will abandon this policy – at least superficially – and immediately criticize Whites (which is also occurring) for appropriating their tactics and demand Whites cease and desist immediately e.g. no White Student Unions or White advocacy groups.

This is why the media, and Black advocacy groups across the country, went into a frenzy over the popping up of White Student Unions on college campuses across the country and why when one asks for such an organization the response given is almost always, “You don’t need them but we do”.

The Huffington Post category which compiles their articles dealing with White Student Unions would be comical if it weren’t so indicative of the hostility towards White racial consciousness amidst the rise of Black and Hispanic racial consciousness currently underway in America.

An article appearing on the Harvard Crimson – Harvard’s campus newspaper – back in November 2015 titled ‘White Student Union’ Facebook Page Prompts Concern should tell you everything you need to know concerning the general public’s stance in denying Whites the very privileges Blacks and Hispanics are demanding for themselves.

Despite acknowledging Black Lives Matter’s recently published list of demands, only a vague reference to them is given in the Monitor’s article. Stating ‘Black humanity and dignity requires black political will and power’ the list of demands is framed in an explicitly hostile and anti-White pro-Black context.

There are six categories each of which are composed of their own separate list of demands under these categories. A select few demands from each category are listed below:

Reparations for the systematic denial of access to high quality education opportunities in the form of full and free access for Black people;

Reparations for the continued divestment from, discriminations toward and exploitation of our communities in the form of guaranteed minimum livable income for all Black people;

Reparations for the wealth extracted from our communities through environmental racism, slavery, food apartheid, housing discrimination and racialized capitalism in the form of corporate and government reparations;

Public financing of elections and the end of money controlling politics;

Election protection, electoral expansion and the right to vote for all people including: full access, guarantees, and protections of the right to vote for all people;

Protection and increased funding for Black institutions.

We encourage readers to review the entire set of demands listed. However, it is clear from the language and characterization of these demands that they are explicitly targeted at the shrinking middle class (despite the allusions to ‘corporate’ organizations) given the largest tax paying demographic in the United States is White working class Americans.

This amounts to nothing less than the total economic, political, and social enslavement of Whites to Blacks.

Of course, none of this would be necessary were each individual racial demographic bloc returned, either peacefully or forcibly (and force is more than warranted here given the hostile nature of these demands), to their ancestral homelands; Blacks living and controlling Africa, Asians in China and Japan, Whites in Europe and North America, etc.

This begs the question, however, as to why this isn’t the option most desired by all parties involved. The answer is simple: they want what we have and see themselves as having a right to it. Conversely, we have no right to what is ours and must give it up as an eternal sacrifice.

Further, contemplate the language which describes this radical shift in public discourse amongst Blacks targeted against Whites by Blacks,

The increasing momentum behind color consciousness among the African-American community and beyond marks an attempt to fundamentally change the American conversation on race.

The language afforded to Blacks in favor of positive views towards their race while applying a negative view towards the racial identity of Whites and Whites as a racial group is as stark as it is clear in its implications of what is to come should groups like Black Lives Matter achieve their aims.

The total, absolute and utter enslavement and impoverishment of Whites for the benefit of Blacks.

Heather Townsend: A Look Towards the Future in Store for Our Children

As an example of the rising tide of hostility towards Whites by Blacks in America, and the general predilections of Whites against viewing America in racial terms, the article presents us with Heather Townsend – a native of Atlanta, Georgia and the victim of racially motivated crime against Whites in America.

Last year, two of her friends – young, white men – were killed during a robbery attempt near the hipster neighborhood of Little Five Points. Police charged three black men and one black boy with the murders. Though no hate crime charges were filed, many people in the neighborhood, including Ms. Townsend, felt that the killings had racial overtones.

It is interesting, given the current political rhetoric of social progressives and Black activists, that when the feelings and perceptions of Whites come into play they are utterly disregarded by Blacks and progressives. Yet, when we hear the voluminous cries from the Black community and their ‘allies’ regarding ‘White privilege’, racial issues, and ‘institutional racism’ Whites are expected to simply remain silent in passive assent. Special attention should be given to points five and eight.

More important, however, is how Ms. Townsend is described in the article in response to being a victim of Black crime through the lives lost of her two friends,

But she doesn’t want to make anything of race, and she worries how the reaction to such incidents might shift if color consciousness became a more explicit part of the national conversation.

At the core of our modern crisis the above quote reflects the why of how White Americans arrived at our current perilous situation. Ms. Townsend knows what’s wrong, and she even knows the consequences of what her reaction would be if she were to publicize it.

But because Whites are currently under attack in America she is reluctant to both call attention to the surmounting problems or discuss possible solutions to these problems, as groups like Black Lives Matter advocate, being one where racial consciousness is mainstreamed into the American consciousness.

Ms. Townsend’s solution is to either ignore it or run away. Unfortunately for Whites like Ms. Townsend, myself, and all others across the country the choice has already been made for us. However, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. As more Blacks are radicalized against Whites this means more Whites will come to see the reality of their situation and start to fight back against it.

This is already occurring.

Blacks, and non-White groups such as Jews, understand that when Whites get together and start advocating for their own racial interests they tend to be extremely successful in attaining them. The issue isn’t a matter of being reluctant, or at the most actually seeing, ourselves and others as distinct racial groups (as we noted above, this is already occurring) but rather whether, for Whites, this phenomenon will actually happen in a way that benefits Whites as a group.

Sometimes you don’t get to pick your enemies. Regardless, when they pick you, simply claiming they’re not your enemies doesn’t change the reality that they see you as a road block to their own aims.

A major tactic of anti-Whites and those who see themselves as advocating specifically for Black interests involves destabilizing, fracturing, and diasporizing White communities through integration and increased narratives about the positive economic and social benefits of forced diversity and multiculturalism.

Thankfully, the scientific research on the effects of multiculturalism, racially diverse, and ethnically diverse communities points to the reality that these things have extremely negative consequences for all parties involved.

If Ms. Townsend had access or knew of studies such as the ones above, she’d know just how on the mark her comment regarding treading the path of Black Lives Matter is. Not because racial consciousness is bad – indeed it comprises the totality of the basis for human group interaction between distinct groups and continues to do so even today amidst the claims of globalization and ethnic pluralism – but because what ‘going even further down that road’ entails as far as Black Lives Matter is concerned is the systematic and organized destruction of Whites, White society, and European historical achievements.

Ms. Townsend’s attitude typifies this suicidal attitude most Whites have towards their own dispossession,

Race remains an issue, a real issue, but I’m not going to fight it, because it’s only going to get worse […] I just walk away when [race] comes up. There’s no need to go dredging up the past in order to bring it to the future.

Again, echoing the sentiment that you don’t get to pick your enemies most of the time, whether Whites in America want to confront race, embrace it, or ignore it is now moot. Those who see us as objects in their path to be overcome in order to attain their own survival will adopt whatever method and strategy they can in order to do so.

Currently their best method is one which pits White guilt over the actions of our ancestors against these non-White aggressors in a way which denies us the moral or practical acknowledgment of race while at the same time demanding Whites privilege them the position to do just that.

Whites are actively blinding themselves to both their dispossession and their salvation.

Conversely Stan Robertson, an unemployed Black man in the same city as Ms. Townsend, predictably and rationally (insofar as he’s a rational actor working towards his own group’s interests) sees things in exactly the opposite light; acknowledgment of race and a color conscious America is the best avenue for him and Blacks like him towards their own prosperity through Whites.

Of course, why wouldn’t he? If your enemy hands you the launch codes to their own demographic and economic nuclear bomb you’d be insane not to punch in the key combination. Or at least hold the fact that you have those keys to their annihilation over their heads and demand everything you can extort from them before they finally decide self-enslavement is worse than total extinction.

In a utopian paradise where multiculturalism and diversity didn’t come with all the drawbacks it does and actually afforded such a society the benefits it’s proclaimed to afford, but doesn’t actually, the kind of feigned good intentioned ‘color consciousness’ being injected into the bloodstream of the American consciousness wouldn’t be an issue.

Logically, if multiculturalism provided the benefits it’s claimed to, this color consciousness wouldn’t even be necessary since the benefits would be so obvious and apparent that opposition to it would be nonsensical.

Instead, we live in the real world where the reality is such that race is used as a prop for the Black community to extract all it can for their own benefit from White communities while simultaneously bludgeoning Whites into their racial and existential grave.

This is what Ms. Townsend is running away from and what Mr. Robertson is actively in favor of.

The silver lining in all of this, and indeed the small glimmer of hope which has presented itself to Whites in America in the form of Donald Trump rests in the observed fact that all it takes is one strong man with a will to do what is necessary, to say what is obvious, and to push back against what is odious. This has the unique ability to blow the roof completely off the jailhouse which has become White Americas own panoptical prison.

Just imagine a committed and unified group of Whites working for their own preservation and the prosperity of their posterity.

Political correctness stands dead in the wake of Donald Trump while the way forward has been made immeasurably less strenuous insofar as Whites have a chance to wake up to their own destruction. In some sense, how we perceive the world around us starts to reshape and remold the actual fabric of reality. Donald Trump has lit the torch, and tapped into this long-dormant specter. For Whites, this represents a beginning towards seeing themselves as a legitimate group with legitimate interests – whatever they may be.

All that’s left for Whites in America to do is have the courage and strength to carry his torch forward into the future, embrace our risen specter, and work towards a new dawn in the post-colorblind America. In a very real sense, Donald Trump is our Barack Obama.

When was the last time someone asked you who you were? Or, more precisely, when was the last time you asked yourself what it means to be you? Growing up, and well into my teenage years, I had the luxury of knowing my now since-passed relatives who themselves grew up during a time when not knowing who you were was either seen as evidence of mental illness or worse, suspicion that you may be a Communist sympathizer or some other anti-American ideological supporter.

Today things have changed dramatically and not all of them have been for the better. Indeed, many of these changes have been to the detriment of the American Country and its traditional founding stock – American Whites of European ancestry. If you count yourself among the legions of leftist progressive ideologues you’d likely find it easy to answer the question ‘Who are you?’.

Predictably, you’d likely claim you’re a supporter of progress, equality, liberty, religious freedom (or freedom from religion), homosexual rights, rights for the mentally ill transgendered community. You may passionately and aggressively proclaim your support for anarchism or communism and identify yourself as an anarcho-syndicalist or Marxist. You might also see yourself as a subversive of the state apparatus, militarized police, and institutional racism. You probably count yourself a devout practitioner of Kropotkin, Gramsci, or Alinsky.

Likely, you haven’t reflected on why you’re so open with beliefs that just 25 – 50 years ago would have landed you in jail, unemployable, and socially ostracized. Then, the State was against you. Now, you’ve got its full support.

However, it’s likely that you’re not any of those things or at the most you’re probably somewhat socially left and fiscally centrist or conservative. You’re reading this article and you found your way to this publication so this seems like a safe assumption. And if you were paying attention to the last sentence of the previous paragraph some things are probably starting to click in your mind – albeit they’re likely making you uncomfortable.

That’s alright. Many of us were in your shoes at one point too and we felt just as uncomfortable. Looking back, I now know the discomfort you’re likely feeling – discomfort I felt too – was the result of my reluctance to admit that there’s something deeply wrong with the America I see around me today and one which, while growing up, now no longer exists.

Today, if you’re any bit politically active – whether it be on social media or in your public life – and if you’re anything less than a Marxist or you dare commit the heinous act of claiming you’re not interested in the things the Left is selling you’re automatically labeled a racist, bigoted, homophobic, misogynistic, covert Klu Klux Klan supporter. You’re also probably secretly gay, suppressing homoerotic tendencies, hate your Christian upbringing, or worse (but to the jubilant glee of your detractors) – you probably had your girlfriend stolen by some successful Black Idris Elba look-alike. Oh, and you’re also White. That’s the crucial component.

If you have any of these subversive non-leftist opinions and you’re Black you’ll just get called a ‘House Nigger’, ‘Uncle Tom’, or a race traitor. But that’s it. On the other hand, if you’re any of these things (which means you’re also all of them implicitly) and you’ve been unlucky enough to be born the descendant of European immigrants from anywhere on the European continent (i.e. you’re a White male) you’ll be talking to your boss in the morning telling him why he’s getting all these calls demanding he fire you for being a racist hatful bigot who wants nothing more than to murder Muslims, lynch Blacks, and oppress women.

You’ll probably get death threats, your children if you have any will likely be questioned by their school’s counselor and Child Protective Services as to whether you’ve sexually harassed them, beat them, or worse not taught them about their implicit White privilege. Your wife, if you’re lucky enough to be married in a country with astronomically high divorce rates and a culture that abhors heterosexual marriage, will be pressured on her social media accounts, at her job if she works, and get nasty emails and threats herself – likely wishing she is swiftly raped by a non-White male.

Your life will become stressful, your mind will become clouded, and your once peaceful life with your two children and your happy beautiful wife will seem like a fairy tale.

There is something deeply wrong with America. But what? And why?

You may have felt it but you pushed it to the back of your mind because for all intents your life was pretty great. But you made one fatal mistake. You had an opinion, a belief, a set of political principles which put you at odds with the established and entrenched Cultural Marxist left that has become the American education, Academic, and political system. And you’re White.

The what and the why of what’s at the root of the American rot as well as how you’re connected to all this is inextricably linked to the core principle underlying the title of this article.

Identity.

Up to this point what you’ve just read, if you’re still reading, has been what can only be described as the psychological and social equivalent to a defibrillator charge to your mental chest. If there was an easier way to talk about these things this country would likely not be in the predicament it’s currently in, I’d likely not be writing this article, and this publication would likely not exist. If this is a bit too much for you to take in all at once I encourage you to take a break, hug your kids if you have any, kiss your wife if you have one, or take a walk outside.

A point of note before we continue. You’re likely reading, or rereading through this, and probably saying, “Okay, well show me the evidence… these are some pretty strong and provocative claims you’re making!”. There will be no links, no sourced articles, nor any screenshots linking back to support anything I’ve already written or will write hereafter.

I assure you, the information, data, demographic reports, social media archives, and public videos are all available if you’re willing to put in the effort to seek them out. It is important you seek this information yourself, willingly, and come out the other side having learned everything a growing community of like-minded individuals now know all on your own.

There are those out there willing to point you in the right direction but ultimately you have to have the courage and perseverance to take that first step. None of this information needs to be sought out on ‘fringe’ websites like InfoWars or some obscure lunatic’s blog shouting about some clandestine group proclaiming “Mulder was right!” All the data and other things I mentioned above are available free of charge on government websites like FBI.gov, the Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS), and Census records to name a few.

What Is Identity?

There are a few ways to describe it and I’ll start from most abstract to least abstract.

The logical representation of predicate and subject:

A = B

A pseudo-logical explanation of the word identity:

‘There is a thing “A” such that it represents “B”

The phenomenological definition:

The human individual, as a conscious subject equipped with memory, imagination, and sensation, collects and categorizes their lived experiences such as they appear to him and from this forms a complex basis of subjectivity (i.e. understands himself as a subject) which he then ties to himself and thus ties his existence to the physical and psychospiritual world (i.e. the non-material psychological world of the mind).

If you’re not used to seeing things written in this manner, don’t feel discouraged. You’ve likely been kept in the dark about a lot of things which were common knowledge to many Americans of European descent. Bear through it because there’s not really any better way to go about this.

Where Does Identity Come from?

Identity as a linguistic symbol derives from one’s observation, and thus recognition through this observation, that his own self, being a physical thing in the world along with other physical things, is a special kind of distinct thing.

In creating a word identity, we establish a symbol by which we may move towards creating meaningful knowledge of other subjective beings (again, this just means someone who sees themselves as a subject – not to be confused with subjective in the arbitrary sense) who have also distinguished themselves as special kinds of things. Thus, from the word to its meaning, the concept of identity is ushered forth into the experiential world of human existence.

In observing, and recognizing through observation, the concept of identity applied to, and by, a human subject particularized subjective identity springs forth from the consciousness of the human subject. Identity now becomes dualistic in that it is both concept and subject.

In other words, when we look at the world and see ourselves as distinct from other things in the world, we apply this distinctiveness to ourselves and from this we’ve now made ourselves a single (particular) subject. Now, there’s this thing we call identity which we understand as a concept and this thing we call identity which we understand as our identity.

How, To What, and How Many Levels, the Concept Identity May Be Applied?

Application may be as an affirmation of one’s own understanding of their self, their understanding of others, or as a representation of a unification of many subjective identities into one universal particular identity among many particulars. This extends from the individual and the family unit all the way up to the Nation.

The universalization of many into one particular among many distinct (particular) groups constitutes the creation of the concept of the other.

The Other is the negation of the I. The I is the subjective understanding you create which you then claim is your identity. It is an implicit and explicit exclusion of what now becomes called the Other. I am not you and you are not me. Though the I (you) and the other (me) may share similar constitutive parts of each subjective identity no two others (people) may be the same I such that they are an identical I.

The more similarities two others share the less likely they are to come into conflict. As a result, it is not surprising that human societies have traditionally been seen and documented grouping themselves around others who share similar characteristics, religious beliefs, physical traits, a common language, and skills.

What Does It Mean to Deny an Identity; To Undermine an Identity?

To deny the identity of another is an explicitly hostile act constituting an attack on their very existence. Such an act is an existentially fatal attempt to revoke their psychospiritual existence and thus render them both alive and dead.

When one denies the identity of another they are signaling to the denied that they are somehow mistaken in their observation of their external surroundings, that their consciousness is somehow faulty, and that what they have constituted as their special ‘kind-ness’ is incorrect.

Such an act is disorienting both mentally and physically and will render anyone lacking the sufficient will to reaffirm their subjective identity against the claims of a now proclaimed hostileother immobile and subject to the manipulation and in the worst case scenario, mental and physical enslavement through fear or submission. The more fervent the exclamations of denial the likelier the denied will succumb to the hostile other and ultimately be rendered subservient.

Can We Live Without an Identity?

It does not seem possible to live without an identity. Conscious existence necessarily demands both the concept itself as an objective reality and the resulting creation of identity as a subject. Whether or not this is an objective fact or merely the conditional result of human faculty is irrelevant and either way the outcome is still the same. Identity exists and serves a life-preserving function. To undermine identity as a concept or as a concept applied to a subject wherein the concept becomes subject is necessarily life-denying.

How can one not categorize the world? Language itself stands as an explicit display of the reality of identity given language is one kind of contingent symbolism whose purpose appears directly linked to the preservation and continuation of human existence in its many forms.

Can Existence Itself as A Concept Survive Without the Existence of the Concept of Identity?

The answer to this question seems an obvious ‘no’. But, this may be the result of an implicit linguistic bias towards the word ‘existence’ as a symbol for life itself. The question we must ask ourselves is can we conceive of identity without any sort of linguistic symbolism? Since it is unlikely that any human being can recall a time when they did exist yet did not have the use of language – even the most rudimentary and limited vocabulary would suffice to constitute ‘the use of language’ – and since human beings are necessarily of the category animal we can look to other animals who have no known language system or other faculty for symbolic representation for an answer.

Take as an example any individual animal which we call rabbit. Certainly it is beyond discussion that these animals lack any kind of symbolic system with which they consciously represent their world to themselves or other rabbits. However, we can observe when one of the rabbit’s natural predators approach, or some other creature it is unfamiliar with, they flee in the hopes to survive. Though they lack any sort of language, symbol, or system of representation there still exists an unconscious identity with the approaching creature and the need to flee. Whether they experience the concept of fear as human beings experience it doesn’t matter. What does matter is were they capable of similar symbolic representations conscious beings have, it is conceivable they would likely do as we do and create an identity with a concept and an other – in this case the concept of fear (or flee) with an approaching unknown or predator as the subject tied to the concept.

If we assume the above is incorrect then we must also conclude that the rabbit would end up being the meal of the approaching predator or some other possible ill fate in the case of an approaching unknown. Thus, existence necessarily requires identity, at least practically, and in the case of human existence it certainly seems necessary for any meaningful existence beyond fleeing threats and foraging for food.

Towards a New Identity

So, who are you? What does it mean to be you? How do you know yourself? What values, ideals, principles, virtues, beliefs, and experiences make you, you? Are you comfortable proclaiming them in public? With your name attached to them? What about your address? Your place of business? What about your employer?

It’s at this point that someone thinking themselves quite clever would point out that 25-50 years ago certain groups of people wouldn’t have been able to do any of those things either. This creates the false illusion that the American way of life 25-50 years ago was a place for those values or identities.

This is a crucial aspect to the concept of identity itself. Part of what constitutes our identity and breathes life into it are the communities and soil with which these identities are attached. America in the 1930’s to the 1950’s was in no way a place for Communist identities, Marxist concepts of illusory and utopian egalitarianism, or the radical waves of subversive feminism all of which were advocated for, and composed of, predominantly Jewish Marxists and progressives.

Given the only mandate of State governments at the founding of this country in its Constitution was that they be Republican governments, that just as the creators of the founding system didn’t want their system to fall back into what they were trying to rid themselves of in the first place so too does it stand to reason that the right to free speech as a right granted to bar political retaliation for criticizing the government does not extend to speech which is antithetical to the core doctrines of the government. That’s a fancy way of saying Marxists and Communists don’t get 1st Amendment protections.

The reason being is their identity is one of total opposition to the one which was here when they brought their identity with them from wherever they came. It wouldn’t be rational for you to let me come into your home and then allow me to kick you out. It doesn’t make sense to make room for identities which seek to undermine and destroy the host’s identity either.

This is where we are today. For the past 80 – 100 years there has been an ever-increasing campaign against the traditional identity of this country in favor of something which renders its adherents submissive, dull, unimaginative, and free to be molded in whatever way is suitable. The eradication of traditional, and evolutionarily evolved gender roles, monogamous and healthy loving marriages, child rearing, hard work, civic service, a nationalistic pride for your kin and soil, and a willingness to defend these things with your life if need be.

Instead, if you’re not content with the illiberal Marxist ideology of subservience and prostration you can choose between the many hosts of terrible food, low-quality but highly branded entertainment devices, or your choice of overpriced ‘elite’ clothing. This is what your choice is today in America if you want an identity. Anything else and the system comes crashing down on you like a jackhammer on a nail.

Your National Identity, Cultural Identity, Ancestral Identity, and your Historical Identity has been stolen from you and replaced with consumerism and left versus right wing fiscal policy. If things don’t change and people submit to this theft, then what was once the American Dream will be an American afterthought – if it’s remembered at all.

Now, both European and American histories, cultures, nations – their identities – are being threatened with a massive hostile invasion feigned as refugee immigration from the Middle East for both and economic immigration from Mexico in the case of America. And if you dare speak out you’re labeled, again, Islamophobic. The major issue here is just how hypocritical and blatantly anti-White this entire phenomenon is. Only Whites are demanded to relinquish their culture, heritage, and ancestral lands. Imagine if Whites demanded land in Africa!

So, as a result millions of White Americans have risen up, risked blood and limb, and thrown their support behind Donald J. Trump. His promises to return America to its greatness, build a wall on the Southern border, and deny Muslims entry into the United States has signaled a reawakening currently underway in the United States. Of course, the liberal punditry across the nation has feigned ignorance as to why his rise was so swift and unpredicted but then that would mean admitting to their own plans otherwise.

There have been many great thinkers throughout the history of Western civilization who have remarked that all previous events have led to their respective ages and no other future was possible. So too has the initial founding of the United States led its founding stock to their dire situation today – to your dire situation. We are without an identity and without a system which would allow us political or institutional legitimacy to create one. Thus, it is up to the future European Americans of this once hopeful prospective experiment in a new kind of government to forge a new identity, not for ourselves, but for our children.

This identity must be rooted in blood, kinship, soil, and our desire to create a nation which will stand as an undeniable symbol of our existence as a people and as the best humanity has produced thus far. We must seek out a new dawn and traverse the tightrope towards our own values. And we must do so merrily like a court Jester dancing across the grave his enemy has laid out for him. Our identity is what we make it; how we see ourselves and conceive our future is entirely up to us. No one can make this decision for you but you and so your future demands you choose.

Will you be the last man before the American flame is extinguished forever? Or will you be part of a group of New Men, a group of attempters, determined to relight the flickering flame of western society ablaze towards a new dawn?